I am using a WebBrowser component in WPF to host some JavaScript + HTML and I want to be able to pass a customisable object in as the ObjectForScripting property. My end goal is that the javascript running in the WebBrowser can call something like:
window.external['lookup'].getValue(someId);
I can achieve something close to this by implementing a class with ComVisible set to true that has a lookup property on it:
[ComVisible(true)]
public class ScriptingContext
{
public LookupService lookup { get; set; } //where LookupService is also ComVisible
}
However, I want to be flexible about the members on the ObjectForScripting that I'm passing in so I can't specify what each property will be beforehand.
Ideally I would like to just specify a name-object pair to pass in, but afaict this doesn't work.
What I have tried (and failed with) so far:
using a Dictionary<string,object> as my context
using an extension of Dictionary<string,object> that is marked as ComVisible
using an ExpandoObject
using a List<KeyValuePair<string,object>>
using an extension of List<KeyValuePair<string,object>> that is marked as ComVisible
Is there some way to pass a customisable ObjectForScripting into the WPF WebBrowser that I am missing?
I'm not sure what you mean by customisable, but there's plenty of ways to accomplish what you're going for, such as building a wrapper for your dictionary and having that be your ObjectForScripting:
[ComVisible(true)]
public class ScriptingContext
{
private Dictionary<string, object> objectsForScripting;
public object GetValue(string s)
{
return objectsForScripting[s];
}
}
With the corresponding javascript window.external.GetValue("lookup").getValue(someId).
Note that you can also pass ComVisible objects to javascript through the InvokeScript method and interact with them that way, using something like webBrowser.InvokeScript("RegisterProperty", "lookup", lookupObject) and manage the objects you're exposing on the javascript side.
Related
I found the following use of a wrapper class, and was wondering if it is a good practice or whether its just duplication of code for no reason.
//Class:
public class SomeClass{
public Integer someInt;
public String someString;
}
//Callout Class:
public class CalloutClass{
public SomeClass someMethod(){
//...code to do a callout to an api
SomeClass someClassObj = (SomeClass)JSON.Deserialize(APIResponse.getBody(), SomeClass.class);
return someClassObj;
}
}
//Controller:
public class SomeController {
public SomeController(){
someClassObj = calloutClassObj.someMethod();
SomeWrapper wrapperObj = new SomeWrapper();
for(SomeClass iterObj : someClassObj){
wrapperObj.someWrapperInt = iterObj.someInt;
wrapperObj.someWrapperString = iterObj.someString;
}
}
public class someWrapper{
public Integer someWrapperInt{get;set;}
public String someWrapperString{get;set;}
}
}
The wrapper class "someWrapper" could be eliminated if we just use getters and setters ({get;set;}) in "SomeClass."
Could anyone explain if there could be a reason for following this procedure?
Thanks,
James
My assumption (because, code in controller is extra pseudo) is
SomeClass is a business entity, purpose of which is to store/work with business data. By work I mean using it's values to display it (using wrapper in controller), to calculate smth in other entities or build reports... Such kind of object should be as lightweight as possible. You usually iterate through them. You don't need any methods in such kind of objects. Exception is constructor with parameter(s). You might want to have SomeObject__c as parameter or someWrapper.
someWrapper is a entity to display business entity. As for wrapper classes in controllers. Imagine, that when you display entity on edit page and enter a value for someWrapperInt property, you want to update someWrapperString property (or you can just put validation there, for example, checking if it is really Integer). Usually, as for business entity, you don't want such kind of functionality. But when user create or edit it, you may want smth like this.
I have a project in WPF with a lot of UserControls, some user controls uses Kinect KinectColorViewer.xaml
I want to handle the sensor discovering and setup (conect, disconect, etc) in main window and serve it to my UserControls, how is the best way to do it?
Here is the project that explains my question.
If you prefer, here are the github link.
From your example code,
Assuming you want to maintain as much of the already available code from Microsoft, you will want to set up a reference to the KinectSensorManager on initializing your application. My constructor normally looks something like this:
private readonly KinectSensorChooser sensorChooser = new KinectSensorChooser();
public KinectSensorManager KinectSensorManager { get; private set; }
public MainViewModel()
{
// initialize the Kinect sensor manager
KinectSensorManager = new KinectSensorManager();
KinectSensorManager.KinectSensorChanged += this.KinectSensorChanged;
// locate an available sensor
sensorChooser.Start();
// bind chooser's sensor value to the local sensor manager
var kinectSensorBinding = new Binding("Kinect") { Source = this.sensorChooser };
BindingOperations.SetBinding(this.KinectSensorManager, KinectSensorManager.KinectSensorProperty, kinectSensorBinding);
}
The KinectSensorManager is just a helper class. You can rewrite code to easily avoid using it, but it doesn't do anything bad (does a lot of nice stuff for you) so I've just keep using it. Also, since I'm assuming you want to re-use as much code as possible, we want to maintain its usage.
For your control, you can extend KinectControl which will set up a bunch of helpful items for you. So...
public partial class KinectUserControl : KinectControl
{
...
}
This will give your control access to a lot of override-able functions that listen in to various events (like KinectSensorChanged). Check our the KinectColorViewer code and you can see how it overrides this function, which allows it to automatically start displaying new data if you swap Kinects.
When declaring your control in the XAML you can now add a reference to the KinectSensorManager:
<my:KinectUserControl KinectSensorManager="{Binding KinectSensorManager}" />
Because your control now has a KinectSensorManager property, it should pass through to your KinectColorViewer control as well.
I've begun experimenting with dependency injection (in particular, MEF) for one of my projects, which has a number of different extensibility points. I'm starting to get a feel for what I can do with MEF, but I'd like to hear from others who have more experience with the technology. A few specific cases:
My main use case at the moment is exposing various singleton-like services that my extensions make use of. My Framework assembly exposes service interfaces and my Engine assembly contains concrete implementations. This works well, but I may not want to allow all of my extensions to have access to all of my services. Is there a good way within MEF to limit which particular imports I allow a newly instantiated extension to resolve?
This particular application has extension objects that I repeatedly instantiate. I can import multiple types of Controllers and Machines, which are instantiated in different combinations for a Project. I couldn't find a good way to do this with MEF, so I'm doing my own type discovery and instantiation. Is there a good way to do this within MEF or other DI frameworks?
I welcome input on any other things to watch out for or surprising capabilities you've discovered that have changed the way you architect.
Is there a good way within MEF to
limit which particular imports I allow
a newly instantiated extension to
resolve?
Load the extension code in a separate container, and make sure that the restricted parts are not available in that container. Let's simplify the situation to these classes to construct an example:
[Export]
public class MyExtension
{
[Import]
public PublicService Service { get; set; }
}
[Export]
public class PublicService
{
}
[Export]
public class InternalService
{
}
[Export]
public class Program
{
[Import]
public MyExtension Extension { get; set; }
[Import]
public PublicService Service1 { get; set; }
[Import]
public InternalService Service2 { get; set; }
}
The goal is to allow MyExtension to import PublicService, but not InternalService. Internal code like Program should be able to import anything. You can achieve that like this:
var publicCatalog = new TypeCatalog(typeof(PublicService), typeof(MyExtension));
var publicContainer = new CompositionContainer(publicCatalog);
var internalCatalog = new TypeCatalog(typeof(Program), typeof(InternalService));
var internalContainer =
new CompositionContainer(internalCatalog, publicContainer);
var program = internalContainer.GetExport<Program>();
This code will not throw a composition exception. If you now change the import on MyExtension to the forbidden InternalService, you will get a composition exception as desired.
A side effect of this set-up is that PublicService cannot import any private services either, just like MyExtension. This kind of makes sense, because otherwise nothing would stop PublicService from exposing a private service via a property.
I have used TypeCatalog for the example, but in practice you should probably use something like the FilteredCatalog sample.
This particular application has
extension objects that I repeatedly
instantiate. I can import multiple
types of Controllers and Machines,
which are instantiated in different
combinations for a Project. I couldn't
find a good way to do this with MEF,
so I'm doing my own type discovery and
instantiation. Is there a good way to
do this within MEF or other DI
frameworks?
You might just be after the PartCreationPolicy attribute, which controls whether a part is shared (as in, created only once per container) or instantiated multiple times for each import. You can also specify the RequiredCreationPolicy parameter in an import attribute.
If that doesn't solve your problem, take a look at the PartCreator sample in the MEF sources (though note that it will probably soon be renamed to ExportFactory, it already has been in the silverlight edition of MEF).
I have a Silverlight application which has two different XAPs - an InitialXAP which is loaded statically by the HTML page and a DynamicXAP which is loaded from code within the initial XAP. The DynamicXAP is loaded with code similar to this:
var asm = LoadAssemblyFromXap(stream, "DLLName");
// LoadAssemblyFromXAP will load the DynamicXAP as a file stream,
// unpack it and load DLLName as a dll.
var controllerType = asm.GetType("ClassNameToInstantiate_InsideAsm");
var constructor = controllerType.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);
return constructor.Invoke(null);
I have a class which uses reflection (specifically FieldInfo.GetValue) to do data binding. This class is defined in the InitialXAP. If I try to use this class in the DynamicXAP, I get an error:
Message: Unhandled Error in Silverlight Application System.FieldAccessException: Class.In.DynamicXAP.Which.Uses.The.Reflection.Class.In.InitialXAP
at System.Reflection.RtFieldInfo.PerformVisibilityCheckOnField(IntPtr field, Object target, IntPtr declaringType, FieldAttributes attr, UInt32 invocationFlags)
at System.Reflection.RtFieldInfo.InternalGetValue(Object obj, Boolean doVisibilityCheck, Boolean doCheckConsistency)
at System.Reflection.RtFieldInfo.InternalGetValue(Object obj, Boolean doVisibilityCheck)
at System.Reflection.RtFieldInfo.GetValue(Object obj)
I can get around this error by creating a subclass of the class using reflection and overriding the method using reflection like so:
public class InitialXAP.ClassUsingReflection {
public virtual object GetValue()
{
return fieldInfo.GetValue(parent);
}
}
public class ClassUsingReflection : InitialXAP.ClassUsingReflection {
public override object GetValue()
{
return fieldInfo.GetValue(parent);
}
}
But I would prefer to avoid this duplication by allowing reflection from the InitialXAP in the DynamicXAP. Any ideas on what I can do?
Although there is a learning curve, I would look at Silverlight MEF or Prism (both are together at last in the latest Prism 4 Beta). They both support dynamic loading of modules and enforce good patterns for reuse and separate/team development.
InitialXAP.ClassUsingReflection...
Note the duplicate isn't part of the inital xap namespace (ClassUsingReflection), and may be imported.
Notice GetVisible - as in not visible to Dynamic xap...
Just leave the duplicate (take away base class obviously) and try.
I know this must be an age-old, tired question, but I cant seem to find anything thru my trusty friend (aka Google).
I have a .net 3.5 c# winforms app, that presents a user with a login form on application startup. After a successful login, I want to run off to the DB, pull in some user-specific data and hold them (in properties) in a class called AppCurrentUser.cs, that can thereafer be accessed across all classes in the assembly - the purpose here being that I can fill some properties with a once-off data read, instead of making a call to the DB everytime I need to. In a web app, I would usually use Session variables, and I know that the concept of that does not exist in WinForms.
The class structure resembles the following:
public class AppCurrentUser {
public AppCurrentUser() { }
public Guid UserName { get; set; }
public List<string> Roles { get; set; }
public string Firstname { get; set; }
public string Lastname { get; set; }
}
Now, I have some options that I need some expert advice on:
Being a "dumb" class, I should make the properties non-static, instantiate the class and then set the properties...but then I will only be able to access that instance from within the class that it was created in, right?
Logically, I believe that these properties should be static as I will only be using the class once throughout the application (and not creating new instances of it), and it's property values will be "reset" on application close. (If I create an instance of it, I can dispose of it on application close)
How should I structure my class and how do I access its properties across all classes in my assembly? I really would appreciate your honest and valued advice on this!!
Thanks!
Use the singleton pattern here:
public class AppUser
{
private static _current = null;
public static AppUser Current
{
get { return = _current; }
}
public static void Init()
{
if (_current == null)
{
_current = new AppUser();
// Load everything from the DB.
// Name = Dd.GetName();
}
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
// App startup.
AppUser.Init();
// Now any form / class / whatever can simply do:
var name = AppUser.Current.Name;
Now the "static" things are thread-unsafe. I'll leave it as an exercise of the reader to figure out how to properly use the lock() syntax to make it thread-safe. You should also handle the case if the Current property is accessed before the call to Init.
It depends on how you setup your architecture. If you're doing all your business logic code inside the actual form (e.g. coupling it to the UI), then you probably want to pass user information in as a parameter when you make a form, then keep a reference to it from within that form. In other words, you'd be implementing a Singleton pattern.
You could also use Dependency Injection, so that every time you request the user object, the dependency injection framework (like StructureMap) will provide you with the right object. -- you could probably use it like a session variable since you'll be working in a stateful environment.
The correct place to store this type of information is in a custom implementation of IIdentity. Any information that you need to identify a user or his access rights can be stored in that object, which is then associated with the current thread and can be queried from the current thread whenever needed.
This principal is illustrated in Rocky Lhotka's CLSA books, or google winforms custom identity.
I'm not convinced this is the right way but you could do something like this (seems to be what you're asking for anyway):
public class Sessions
{
// Variables
private static string _Username;
// properties
public static string Username
{
get
{
return _Username;
}
set
{
_Username = value;
}
}
}
in case the c# is wrong...i'm a vb.net developer...
then you'd just use Sessions.USername etc etc